If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Kane, i feel the debt will decrease if Congress can come together. Sure Obama hasn't delivered on his promises but can you say he hasn't faced a huge battle, due to partisanship, around each corner? They fight to fight. In reality, i think Congress is a larger issue than the presidential election for the progress of the next 4 years.

American blood ... I'm assuming you are referencing the one event that was dramatically over politicized. What about the soldiers that are home from an unnecessary war and the soldiers that won't be sent back overseas from a war hungry party?

Sandm, agreed you won't see much on a micro level. However, i think some of the tax law changes that have been discussed could change things at a macro level and will hopefully benefit the country. If history is any precedent, it stands a chance to come true.

Libs conveniently forget history. When O had both houses he barely got his Obamacare passed. They haven't passed a budget in 3 years. They blame republicans for this. O got his stimulus passed. Both the stimulus and the O-care were/are very expensive and failed or doomed to fail. The post office is broke-- how do you think they will do with health care. It's asinine. You also conveniently forgot the Holder scandal on O's watch and the dead Americans from that one. But that's what the TV teaches you-- blame somebody else. Not your fault. Blame the republicans. Blame Bush. Blame the rich. I'm telling you right now that you can't keep taking money from working people and giving it to someone else to make them feel better and vote for you. It will have to end. He knows this and that's why he wants to take our guns away. I have 6 kids and don't want a handout-- my grandparents were proud democrats. They were poor but too proud to go "on relief". They wouldn't take something for nothing. It's just a different mentality now. Ask what your country can do for you and give you on someone else's back.

Kane, the history i was speaking of was from an economic standpoint in relation to tax rates. Go pull the history. He barely got obamacare passed bc he had no plans to shove it down everyones throat. Despite all the negativity around it, is it suprising to see so many for it? They have done a TERRIBLE job educating people on what obamacare is. Like I asked earlier, what parts of obamacare are so terrible? I think it is pretty widely accepted that the stimulus saved the economy from a double dip recession. Rhetoric aside, that comes from both sides of isle.

The TV talk is almost comical since i feel it so strongly biased the other way. And who in the hell has taken someones guns away? The NRA probably loves that Obama got reelected as people who feel the way you mentioned rush to the store to load up. I think the TV really exaggerates the amount of people "living off the government". There is a generalization close to the point of 47% .... how many people do you come across on a daily basis, I'm talking everyone you see, that rely on the government? Anywhere near 47%? I think this is an idea that feeds off peoples egos.

Also, a subsidy is basically an advantage one way away from an equal playing field ... So the working class are subsidizing the lazy people by giving them money, benefits, etc. bc its for the good america. That's the philosophy on subsidies, right? At the same time, isn't it also a subsidy when the government lowers the tax rates for the wealthy? This is an advangtage away from an even playing field. So the tax dollars you pay, yes go to Bergs bum BIL but they are also going to fund the government as a whole due to lost tax dollars from the subsidy on the wealthy. Both are subsidies and a use of your tax dollars.

Now from a macro standpoint, in a time of uncertainty people hoard cash bc its the smart thing to do. How badly does it hurt america that some bum makes poor decisions. From an economic standpoint, him spending every dollar he comes across is better for the economy than the rich holding their money. Transactions are the economy. The current admin isn't asking to give more subsidies to the poor, they are asking to take away the subsidies from the wealthy. This is why the backbone of america has to be the working class. The working class is that group between the two current subsidy groups that are eating away at our economy. They are the ones that are fiscally responsible but don't have enough leverage to use the system to their benefit (which is currently happening). Instead, they are getting squeezed by both groups. The subsidies for the wealthy are way to often left out of the media. I think it stands to reason that with an even playing field, the poor decision makers are going to drift lower and the good decision makers will rise. It's capitalism. What concerns me, is that with an uneven playing field as is, poor decision makers with money have much more leverage than good decision makers without money.

What is worse for the economy, a bum spending every last dollar or a fat cat hoarding capital? Transactions are the economy and there is is finite capital. It's not a redistribution of wealth, its a redistribution of playing field.